If you read DN 9 together with MN 44, that might suggest the answer...

So with this post plus Ben's the message I'm getting is that one exits jhana by way of proper prior planning and development? I'm also reading that it involves a present willing (volition) of a future unwilling (non-volition), i.e., when in jhana you don't do any willing but rely on your previously willed cultivation(s)?

Hi Daniel,I think that maybe the case, as far as I can tell from my reading. - And I am by no means an authority on the issue.My understanding is that the adhitthana decision seems to condition the duration of those jhana factors remaining stable.kind regards,

Ben

Learn this from the waters:in mountain clefts and chasms,loud gush the streamlets,but great rivers flow silently.

Come to the Dark Side, and learn some Pali. You won't need to forego the better English translations. But learning some Pali grammar, especially conjugations if temporal issues interest you, will shed much light on how the English translations should be read, or would have been understood in the native format.

One example of this is to be found in MN 118 and the relation of the tetrads to jhana. If you look at the Pali, you will find that only the 1st tetrad admits of contemporaneity, owing to its use of the missakiriyā construction, versus the bhavissantī construction in the subsequent 3 tetrads. This difference has significant praxis consequences on how one practices ānāpānasati according to the MN 118 ideal.

I presume you mean beyond memorizing vocabulary? I've been doing that for a while. I've used some online tutorials for the grammar, but it's been a few months since I've done any assignments. I have a strong desire to read the suttas in Pali, and eventually do my own translating, so thanks for the motivational reminder.

I'm still a little shocked at how much interpretation is involved in translating Pali.

Sylvester wrote:One example of this is to be found in MN 118 and the relation of the tetrads to jhana. If you look at the Pali, you will find that only the 1st tetrad admits of contemporaneity, owing to its use of the missakiriyā construction, versus the bhavissantī construction in the subsequent 3 tetrads. This difference has significant praxis consequences on how one practices ānāpānasati according to the MN 118 ideal.

Sorry to keep bugging you, but could you give us a brief explanation of what the missakiriyā and bhavissantī constructions are. It's not evident to me from the Pali my search online yielded nil.Thanks.

Ah, yes. I can see that in TB's and BB's translations. I've noticed it before, too, come to think of it. In terms of the contemporaneity (of the viharati [abides in jhana] and samanupassati [regards]), which one are you assigning to tetrad 1 and which to tetrads 2-4?